5 ms·
You are ignoring the bandwidth differential of RF v Fiber-based transmission systems. We don't care if some random unknown crypto session happens on the interne
by 420codebro 7y ago
You are ignoring the bandwidth differential of RF v Fiber-based transmission systems. We don't care if some random unknown crypto session happens on the internet - there is near infinite bandwidth - and someone is paying a bill (on both ends).
With amateur RF it is different - it is a shared, finite resource (in a given area/radius).
Not allowing enciphered communications is a fairly easy way to be able to audit what is taking up the spectrum. If it all goes enciphered, you have no idea what is occurring, for what purposes.
- godelski 7y agoThere's definitely not infinite bandwidth. If there was then we wouldn't have dos attacks. Can we not treat radio in the same way? I mean if we can knock on someone's door that left their mic on why can't we knock on someone's door that is abusing bandwidth? I'm not sure what message content has to do with this abuse. It seems original to me.
- 420codebro 7y agoEverything is possible in a world of "ifs". In reality, you have a shit-ton times more bandwidth available via terrestrial (fiber) networks than RF spectrum could reasonably ever compete with. A similar spirit is why we try to minimize low-quality RF usage (eg, sending some encrypted shit over the air, instead of the internet, just for "fun", in amateur bands).
- vvanders 7y agoIt's many, many, many orders of magnitude difference. I haven't done the math but my hunch is you could fit the entire ham allocation from VHF down in a single 10mbit pipe. VHF is usually 1200bps per channel and gets slower as you get lower in bandwidth.
- godelski 7y agoOkay but you're still ignoring the main question "how does encryption require more bandwidth?"